Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...

[AJSJones]

I, too, use both kinds of photography (grainography and pixelography) but don't consider either one more "real" than the other. For me, it is the viewed final image that is of concern and not any particular knowledge of how it was created or how it is labeled. Of course, if there are certain effects that are better executed by one mode than another and that is the desired effect, it determines the mode to be used, and preferences arise and can vary with the circumstances either during acquisition or viewing. So I'm quite content to revel in a 4x5 transparency on a light table ( a "virtual" contact print if you like), and then make a large inkjet print from it.
As audioexcels summarized in #29, more megapixels is better (oops, sorry, he actually said larger film is better) because it captures more information - some like to take advantage of that by contact printing while I like to take advantage of it by being able to make larger prints than I can from my DSLR. To his second question, the quality of my scanner and film-size combination are a good match (4x5 transparencies, ~2500 real ppi scanner and 24x30 inkjet prints). If I really wanted even larger prints, I think I would need a larger piece of film and a larger printer before I needed a better scanner. And the whole thing would go digital if there were sensibly priced 100MP backs for my Ebony

I'd even settle for 60MP

[audioexcels]

I, too, use both kinds of photography (grainography and pixelography) but don't consider either one more "real" than the other. For me, it is the viewed final image that is of concern and not any particular knowledge of how it was created or how it is labeled. Of course, if there are certain effects that are better executed by one mode than another and that is the desired effect, it determines the mode to be used, and preferences arise and can vary with the circumstances either during acquisition or viewing. So I'm quite content to revel in a 4x5 transparency on a light table ( a "virtual" contact print if you like), and then make a large inkjet print from it.
As audioexcels summarized in #29, more megapixels is better (oops, sorry, he actually said larger film is better) because it captures more information - some like to take advantage of that by contact printing while I like to take advantage of it by being able to make larger prints than I can from my DSLR. To his second question, the quality of my scanner and film-size combination are a good match (4x5 transparencies, ~2500 real ppi scanner and 24x30 inkjet prints). If I really wanted even larger prints, I think I would need a larger piece of film and a larger printer before I needed a better scanner. And the whole thing would go digital if there were sensibly priced 100MP backs for my Ebony

I'd even settle for 60MP

Hehehe

I would love to see two shots taken with different sized sheet film in color and see if there is any noticeable difference. Some say no, some say yes. Would be an interesting thing to see if you can see anymore detail in 2X or 4X the negative at 24X30. I presume you would see it if you are shooting things with lots of detail, but maybe not so much with portraiture.

Have never seen any comparos of a 4X5 sheet vs. a 5X7 or 8X10 sheet with pick whatever film you prefer scanned and enlarged to different sizes to see at what size one can start to notice a distinction both up close and more importantly, standing at a distance one would typically view such a sized print at.

[John O'Connell]

I have a print made at 600dpi from 4x10 film that could pass as a contact print in terms of resolution, the detail is exceptional and it's 200 ISO Bergger, a grainy film.

600 dpi is about 12 lp/mm non-diagonal, about 8 lp/mm diagonally, if your printer actually prints out at 600 dpi. Mine sure doesn't.

I don't find inkjet prints unsatisfying on display, but at an equal viewing distance and size, my contact prints are sharper than my inkjet prints.

[Bruce Watson]

And I am still waiting for the pixelographers to get their own language straightened out.

They don't have their "own language." It's a shared language. Pick up a dictionary. Most words have multiple definitions. This level of ambiguity is necessary to allow English (and every other language I know of) to be useful. Without it you end up with such a huge vocabulary that actual conversations are nearly impossible -- few people know the same words you do which greatly impedes understanding.

You aren't going to change this no matter how much you might want to. So you have the choice of spending your time ranting, or spending your time making photographs in the way you like, or spending your time doing something else. How you choose to spend your time is up to you.

As for me, ranting about other people's use of language isn't high on my list. And if it was, I'd be more upset over the destruction of common words in posting and emails, like the people who don't know the difference between "they're" and "their" and "its" and "it's." And common grammar problems like asking questions without proper punctuation. Fix those first, then we can discuss more arcane definitions.

Until then, I've got some photographs to make.

[andrew vincent]

So you are saying to buy a cheap DSLR, put a decent piece of glass on it, and do equally clean 8X10's and 11X14's?

Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for someone to have a consumer scanner if "any" format can do 8X10's, and medium format will take care of 11X14 on up.

Seems that if one is not willing to have an image scanned for say, $100 average, one should not even shoot LF film. 25-40 photos pro-scanned is what you can buy a pro flatbed for on the used market.

A lot of this has to do with philosophical/aesthetic questions regarding why you do photography / what you think photography is about / etc. Not to be testy, but there's a bit of a "film vs digital" flame-bait in the whole idea of this thread.

For me personally, I don't see any point in using a view camera to make an 8x10 IF you just want a sharp, normal image. I think the combination of speed, flexibility and postprocessing will pretty much insure that a Canon Ds mkIII and a bag full of "L" glass will massively outperform a view camera in the vast majority of scenarios. That's why most professional photographers use them and the LF world is comparatively tiny.

If you want to do gigantic, detailed prints, or if you want to work with all the hand-fashioned, alternative printing technologies that have come back into vogue, you use a view camera - and for the latter, the more ULF the better. Most of the photographic artists I see working with these techniques are not really that interested in maximizing detail - it's certainly not their only concern. Many are deliberately trying to introduce accident, chance, variation, blur, etc.

The arguments about this are not really questions of technology's capabilities- detail, scanning depth, etc. They are about your understanding of photography as an art form, and they've been going on, unresolved, since the mid-19th century with no sign of abating.

As just one example of how people can get far too distracted by these technical issues of detail to the detriment of larger questions of philosophy and aesthetics, consider the case of the german photographer, Thomas Ruff, widely considered one of most important contemporary photographic artists. For his recent New York show in Chelsea, he exhibited approximately 30 massive prints, roughly 60in x 75in, which were taken from low-resolution jpgs posted on the internet. He hasn't even used a camera in over three years. Don't ask what these have sold for, but I'm sure it's over $10,000 each.

For people just coming to LF, they first need to ask themselves what they're doing and why, not just how much detail the eye can see. I'd imagine that the most obviously and lasting reason that cameras of different sizes tend to produce different kinds of images is because they're used differently, not because of their inherent capabilities.

[jetcode]

600 dpi is about 12 lp/mm non-diagonal, about 8 lp/mm diagonally, if your printer actually prints out at 600 dpi. Mine sure doesn't.

I don't find inkjet prints unsatisfying on display, but at an equal viewing distance and size, my contact prints are sharper than my inkjet prints.

The Canon ipf5100 can print to 1200dpi but 600dpi delivers such incredible results that 1200dpi seems completely unnecessary.

Sounds like you may be ready for another printer.

[Bruce Watson]

A lot of this has to do with philosophical/aesthetic questions regarding why you do photography / what you think photography is about / etc. Not to be testy, but there's a bit of a "film vs digital" flame-bait in the whole idea of this thread.

For me personally, I don't see any point in using a view camera to make an 8x10 IF you just want a sharp, normal image. I think the combination of speed, flexibility and postprocessing will pretty much insure that a Canon Ds mkIII and a bag full of "L" glass will massively outperform a view camera in the vast majority of scenarios. That's why most professional photographers use them and the LF world is comparatively tiny.

If you want to do gigantic, detailed prints, or if you want to work with all the hand-fashioned, alternative printing technologies that have come back into vogue, you use a view camera - and for the latter, the more ULF the better. Most of the photographic artists I see working with these techniques are not really that interested in maximizing detail - it's certainly not their only concern. Many are deliberately trying to introduce accident, chance, variation, blur, etc.

The arguments about this are not really questions of technology's capabilities- detail, scanning depth, etc. They are about your understanding of photography as an art form, and they've been going on, unresolved, since the mid-19th century with no sign of abating.

As just one example of how people can get far too distracted by these technical issues of detail to the detriment of larger questions of philosophy and aesthetics, consider the case of the german photographer, Thomas Ruff, widely considered one of most important contemporary photographic artists. For his recent New York show in Chelsea, he exhibited approximately 30 massive prints, roughly 60in x 75in, which were taken from low-resolution jpgs posted on the internet. He hasn't even used a camera in over three years. Don't ask what these have sold for, but I'm sure it's over $10,000 each.

For people just coming to LF, they first need to ask themselves what they're doing and why, not just how much detail the eye can see. I'd imagine that the most obviously and lasting reason that cameras of different sizes tend to produce different kinds of images is because they're used differently, not because of their inherent capabilities.

Well said Andrew. Well said.

[audioexcels]

600 dpi is about 12 lp/mm non-diagonal, about 8 lp/mm diagonally, if your printer actually prints out at 600 dpi. Mine sure doesn't.

I don't find inkjet prints unsatisfying on display, but at an equal viewing distance and size, my contact prints are sharper than my inkjet prints.

I personally judge the sharpness and clarity of a print by going right up to it and looking at it from eye/inches in distance. If it isn't sharp like another is, the other will be the one I would take unless there was some quality about one and the lack of sharpness being its attribute. Going on what you are saying above, and two prints are on the wall, one contact printed, the other not, one showing more sharpness, clarity, etc. at close range, I would take that one over the one that did not exhibit these qualities.

[audioexcels]

A lot of this has to do with philosophical/aesthetic questions regarding why you do photography / what you think photography is about / etc. Not to be testy, but there's a bit of a "film vs digital" flame-bait in the whole idea of this thread.

For me personally, I don't see any point in using a view camera to make an 8x10 IF you just want a sharp, normal image. I think the combination of speed, flexibility and postprocessing will pretty much insure that a Canon Ds mkIII and a bag full of "L" glass will massively outperform a view camera in the vast majority of scenarios. That's why most professional photographers use them and the LF world is comparatively tiny.

If you want to do gigantic, detailed prints, or if you want to work with all the hand-fashioned, alternative printing technologies that have come back into vogue, you use a view camera - and for the latter, the more ULF the better. Most of the photographic artists I see working with these techniques are not really that interested in maximizing detail - it's certainly not their only concern. Many are deliberately trying to introduce accident, chance, variation, blur, etc.

The arguments about this are not really questions of technology's capabilities- detail, scanning depth, etc. They are about your understanding of photography as an art form, and they've been going on, unresolved, since the mid-19th century with no sign of abating.

As just one example of how people can get far too distracted by these technical issues of detail to the detriment of larger questions of philosophy and aesthetics, consider the case of the german photographer, Thomas Ruff, widely considered one of most important contemporary photographic artists. For his recent New York show in Chelsea, he exhibited approximately 30 massive prints, roughly 60in x 75in, which were taken from low-resolution jpgs posted on the internet. He hasn't even used a camera in over three years. Don't ask what these have sold for, but I'm sure it's over $10,000 each.

For people just coming to LF, they first need to ask themselves what they're doing and why, not just how much detail the eye can see. I'd imagine that the most obviously and lasting reason that cameras of different sizes tend to produce different kinds of images is because they're used differently, not because of their inherent capabilities.

For what it's worth, I see differences between film and digital shots. I have not done 1 million hours in photoshop to master it and "force" the digital to look like film and don't care to, but I do not see the same flavor in digital shots that I do in film shots. True, a digital shot can be gorgeous, butter smooth and sharp, etc. etc. But a film shot with today's materials can look extremely vibrant, but also have some "essential" quality about it that I cannot get out of a digital camera with even decent post-processing skills (especially black and white, though I can easily see the difference in color as well).

You made some wonderful points and I appreciate your post. It was very nice but this person selling JPG's printed at such massive sizes and selling for 10K each is beyond me. When I am looking at even a large sized print, I want it sharp at close range, not just when I step back. The image that looks the sharp with the nose to the print vs. the one that is blurryish (but gets sharper when stepping back at a normal viewing distance) is the one I would want because nothing can change the fact that a sharp image from the nose will still look sharper than the one not as sharp, but that does look sharp when stepping back.

Take a television as an example. You have a 50" plasma that you are investigating from 1ft away. You are then looking at 24" high resolution monitor that resides next to the 50" plasma. It takes 10ft or so to see a sharp image on that 50" set with all the rest of the locations looking from blurry-soft, etc. But that 24" high resolution monitor looks tack sharp from the 1ft distance to whatever distance. Though the 50" set is looking sharp at a further distance, that smaller screen is always going to look the sharpest/perceptably sharper. maybe at some massive distance where it becomes pointless to be looking at the TV or a print, both cannot be discerned any different but this is irrelevant.

Thanks again for the post.

[audioexcels]

The Canon ipf5100 can print to 1200dpi but 600dpi delivers such incredible results that 1200dpi seems completely unnecessary.

Sounds like you may be ready for another printer.

http://www.victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Detail/

An interesting comparison. The digital print is ugly in tonality vs. the contact print. Sharpness wise, you can see which is sharper on the 100% comparisons of the eye.